If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The original purpose of the EC was to protect the less populous states from domination by the more populous states. Do we want the president to be elected by the likes of Kalifornia, Ill-i-noise, and Numb Yawk while ignoring "fly over" country?

Four boxes keep us free: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.

The original purpose of the EC was to protect the less populous states from domination by the more populous states. Do we want the president to be elected by the likes of Kalifornia, Ill-i-noise, and Numb Yawk while ignoring "fly over" country?

I disagree. I think it was to insulate the election of the President from the transient political whims of the mob.

I disagree. I think it was to insulate the election of the President from the transient political whims of the mob.

From Wiki:

At the Constitutional Convention, the delegates used the Virginia Plan as the basis for discussions, as the Virginia delegation had proposed it first. The Virginia Plan called for the Executive to be elected by the Legislature.[6] Delegates from a majority of states agreed to this mode of election.[7] However, the Committee of Eleven, formed to work out various details including the mode of election of the President, recommended instead that the election be by a group of people apportioned among the states in the same numbers as their representatives in Congress (the formula for which had been resolved in lengthy debates resulting in the Connecticut Compromise and Three-fifths compromise), but chosen by each state "in such manner as its Legislature may direct." Committee member Gouverneur Morris explained the reasons for the change; among others, there were fears of "intrigue" if the President was chosen by a small group of men who met together regularly, as well as concerns for the independence of the President if he was elected by the Congress.[8] Some delegates, including James Wilson and James Madison, preferred popular election of the executive. Madison acknowledged that while a popular vote would be ideal, it would be difficult to get consensus on the proposal given the prevalence of slavery in the South:[9]

"There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections."

The Convention approved the Committee's Electoral College proposal, with minor modifications, on September 6, 1787.[10] Delegates from the small states generally favored the Electoral College out of concern that the large states would otherwise control presidential elections.

There you go, it was intended to protect the smaller states, plane and simple

"Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings..." Patrick Henry

I am not sure what you mean by "guidelines" but the Constitution is pretty clear that the Several States can choose their electors however they want.

And I'm not sure what your confusion is about the difference between choosing electors....and just dumping a states EC votes to who ever gets the popular vote.

What California is trying to do is chage the rules. This isn't a country based on direct democracy where the mob elects the leader. The EC is very much a part of what makes us a representative Republic.

California wants to revert to mob rule.

How is it doing that? If this were in place in 2004, California would have given its electors to George W. Bush.

And in the case of the 1992 and '96 elections where no candidate got more than 50% of the popular vote?

How is it rigging anything?

That you don't see a problem with it is not surprising. Neither is the fact that this only comes up right after or just before a Dem is about to get his/her ass handed to them in an election.

The only argument I see against this (other than the political argument within the States themselves) is that it is an unconstitutional alliance.

It's very much unconstitutional. Not that something like that stops Libtards these days from changing the rules to try and help their side.

The constitutional theory behind the indirect election of both the President and Vice President of the United States is that while the Congress is popularly elected by the people,[26] the President and Vice President are elected to be executives of a federation of independent states.

In the Federalist No. 39, James Madison argued that the Constitution was designed to be a mixture of state-based and population-based government. The Congress would have two houses: the state-based Senate and the population-based House of Representatives. Meanwhile, the President would be elected by a mixture of the two modes.[27]

Additionally, in the Federalist No. 10, James Madison argued against "an interested and overbearing majority" and the "mischiefs of faction" in an electoral system. He defined a faction as "a number of citizens whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." Republican government (i.e., federalism, as opposed to direct democracy), with its varied distribution of voter rights and powers, would countervail against factions. Madison further postulated in the Federalist No. 10 that the greater the population and expanse of the Republic, the more difficulty factions would face in organizing due to such issues as sectionalism.[28]

"Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings..." Patrick Henry

Now if they wanted to change, all they have to do is go to a proportional system like Maine and Nebraska.

"Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings..." Patrick Henry

James Madison argued against "an interested and overbearing majority" and the "mischiefs of faction" in an electoral system. He defined a faction as "a number of citizens whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."

The original purpose of the EC was to protect the less populous states from domination by the more populous states. Do we want the president to be elected by the likes of Kalifornia, Ill-i-noise, and Numb Yawk while ignoring "fly over" country?

That's a good reason to keep it, and I'm an urban liberal who is not always pleased with the results.

My slovenian cousin is from a country that has one basic ethnicity and a small population. Of course, they are going to use popular vote to determine a winner. This country is different by nature from a european country, where the modern borders appear to be drawn according to the languages and customs of the citizens, not as in the past, by who won the most recent war.

If a State can choose its electors as it sees fit, in this case based on the winner of the national popular vote, how is it "underhanded"?

The fundamental problem with it, which lends the appearance of trickery to it, is that it awards the electoral votes not based on the will or vote of the people of California itself, but based on an external poll in which the California voters are a minority. It basically disenfranchises California voters, or enfranchises non-California voters to affect the California election (Whichever way you want to look at it), so it is indeed highly questionable legally. There also isn't a real perfect legal distinction between picking all the other States as opposed to some of the other States, like all the bordering States.